Imperialism and Socialism in Italy

Published:KommunistNo.1–2, 1915.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to the text in the journalKommunist.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages357-366.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Toclarify the problems presented to socialism as a result of the present
      imperialist war, it is useful to cast a glance at the various European
      countries, so as to learn to distinguish between national modifications
      and details of the general picture, and the fundamental and
      essential. Distance lends clarity to the view. The less the resemblance
      between Italy and Russia, the more interesting it is, in certain respects,
      to compare imperialism and socialism in the two countries.

Inthe present note, we intend only to call attention to material on this
    problem, as provided by a bourgeois professor, Roberto Michels, in his bookItalian Imperialism, and by a socialist, T. Barboni, in a book
    entitledInter nationalism or Class Nationalism?(The Italian
    Proletariat and the European
War),[1]both of which have been
    published since the outbreak of the war. The garrulous Michels, who is just
    as superficial as he is in his other writings, hardly touches upon the
    economic aspect of imperialism. His book, however, contains a collection of
    valuable material on the origin of Italian imperialism and on the transition
    that comprises the essence of the times and is so manifest in Italy, namely,
    the transition from a period of wars for national liberation to a period of
    imperialist and reactionary wars of plunder. Revolutionary-democratic Italy,
    i.e., revolutionary-bourgeois Italy, the Italy thatcast off the yoke of Austria, the Italy of the times of Garibaldi, is
      changing before our very eyes into an Italy that is oppressing other
      peoples and plundering Turkey and Austria, an Italy of a crude,
      repulsively reactionary and rapacious bourgeoisie whose mouth waters at
      the prospect of a share in the loot. Like any respectable professor,
      Michels, of course, considers that his servility to the bourgeoisie is
      “scientific objectivism”; he calls this sharing of the loot
      “partitioning of that part of the world which still remains in the
      hands of debilitated peoples” (p. 179). Disdainfully rejecting as
      “Utopian” the viewpoint of socialists hostile towards colonial
      policies of any kind, Michels repeats the arguments of those who think
      that Italy, judging by the density of her population and the intensity of
      emigration from that country, “should have been the second colonial
      power”, second only to Britain. Michels repudiates by a reference to
      Britain the argument that forty per cent of the Italian people are
      illiterate, and that even today cholera riots, etc., take place there. Was
      not Britain, he asks, a country of unparalleled poverty, humiliation,
      famine among the working masses, and widespread drunkenness, misery, and
      squalor in the city slums, in the first half of the nineteenth century,
      when the British bourgeoisie were so successfully laying the foundations
      of their present colonial power?

Itmust be admitted that, from the bourgeois standpoint, this argument is
    unassailable. Colonial policies and imperialism are not unsound but curable
    disorders of capitalism (the way philistines think, together with Kautsky);
    they are an inevitable consequence of the very foundations of
    capitalism. Competition among individual enterprises inevitably leads either
    to their becoming ruined or ruining others; competition between individual
    countries confronts each of them with the alternative of falling behind,
    ever running the risk of becoming a second Belgium, or else ruining and
    conquering other countries, thus elbowing their way to a place among the
    “Great” Powers.

Italianimperialism has been called “poor people’s
    imperialism” (l’imperialismo della povera gente),
    because of the country’s poverty and the utter destitution of the
    masses of Italian emigrants. Arturo Labriola, the Italian chauvinist,who
      differs from his former opponent, G. Plekhanov, only in that he somewhat
      sooner revealed his social-chauvinism, which he reached via petty-bourgeois
      semi-anarchism, not petty-bourgeois opportunism, wrote in his booklet on the
      Tripolitanian war (1912):

“Itis obvious that we are fighting, not only against the Turks ...
    but also against the intrigues, the intimidations, the money, and the armies
    of plutocratic Europe, which cannot tolerate that small nations should dare
    to make a single gesture or to say a single word that will compromise its
    iron hegemony” (p. 92). Corradini, leader of the Italian nationalists,
    declared at the same time: “Just as socialism was a method of freeing
    the proletariat from the bourgeoisie, nationalism will be for us Italians a
    method of freeing ourselves from the French, the Germans, the British, the
    North and South Americans, who are our bourgeoisie.

Anycountry which has more colonies, capital and armies than
    “we” have, deprives “us” of certain privileges,
    certain profits or super-profits. Just as among individual capitalists
    super-profits go to the one whose machinery is superior to the average or
    who owns certain monopolies, so among nations the one that is economically
    better off than the others gets super-profits. It is the business of the
    bourgeoisie to fight for privileges and advantages for its national capital,
    and to fool the nation or the common folk (with the aid of Labriola and
    Plekhanov) by passing off for a war of national liberation the imperialist
    struggle for the “right” to plunder others.

Priorto the Tripolitanian war, Italy did not plunder other nations, at
    least to no large extent. Is this not an intolerable slight to the national
    pride? The Italians are oppressed and humiliated as compared with other
    nations. Italian emigration was 100,000 annually in the seventies of the
    last century; it now stands at between 500,000 and 1,000,000. All these
    people are paupers, driven from their country by starvation in the literal
    sense of the word. All of them provide labour power for the worst paid
    branches of industry; this mass inhabit the most crowded, poverty stricken,
    and squalid sections of the American and European cities. From 1,000,000 in
    1881, the number of Italians abroad rose to 5,500,000 in 1910, the vast
    majorityof this mass living in the rich and “great” countries,
    for whom the Italians are the crudest, most unskilled, poor and defenceless
    labouring mass. Here are the main countries using cheap Italian labour:
    France—400,000 Italians in 1910 (240,000 in 1881);
    Switzerland—135,000 (41,000 in 1881); Austria—80,000 (40,000);
    Germany—180,000 (7,000); the United States of America—1,779,000
    (170,000); Brazil—1,500,000 (82,000); Argentina—1,000,000 (254
    000). “Glorious” France, which 125 years ago fought for freedom,
    and therefore calls its present war for her own and the British
    slave-holders’ “colonial rights” a war of liberation,
    houses hundreds of thousands of Italian workers in areas that are virtually
    ghettos. The petty-bourgeoiscanailleof this
    “great” nation do all they can to keep these people at a
    distance, and, insult and humiliate them in every possible way. The Italians
    are contemptuously dubbed “Macaroni” (the Great-Russian reader
    should recall how many contemptuous nicknames are current in our country for
    non-Russians whose birth does not entitle them to the noble dominant-nation
    privileges that serve the Purishkeviches as a means of oppressingboththe Great-Russian and the other peoples of Russia). In 1896
    France, that great nation, concluded a treaty with Italy, by which the
    latter undertook not to increase the number of Italian schools in Tunisia!
    Since then the Italian population of Tunisia has increased sixfold. There
    are 105,000 Italians in Tunisia, as against 35,000 Frenchmen, but there are
    only 1,167 holders of land among the former, with an aggregate of 83,000
    hectares, whereas the latter include 2,395 landowners who have grabbed
    700,000 hectares in that colony. How can one fail to agree with Labriola and
    other Italian “Plekhanovites” that Italy is
    “entitled” to possess its colony in Tripoli, oppress Slavs in
    Dalmatia, carve up Asia Minor,
etc.?[2]

Justas Plekhanov supports the Russian war of
      “liberation” against the German striving to turn Russia into a
      colony, Bissolati, leader of the Reformist Party, has raised an outcry
      against the “invasion of Italy by foreign capital” (p. 97),
      namely, German capital in Lombardy, British in Sicily, French in
      Piacentino, Belgian in the street-car enterprises, etc., etc., etc.

Thequestion has been squarely put and one must acknowledge that the
    European war has done humanity enormous good by actually confronting
    hundreds of millions of people of various nationalities with an alternative:eitherdefend, with rifle or pen, directly or indirectly, in any
    form whatever, the dominant-nation and national privileges in general, as
    well as the prerogative or the claims of one’s
    “own” bourgeoisie, that is to say, be its adherent or lackey;orelse utilise any struggle, particularly the clash of arms for
    dominant-nation privileges, so as to unmask and overthrow every government,
    in the first placeone’s own, by means of the revolutionary
    action of an internationally united proletariat. There is no middle road; in
    other words, the attempt to take a middle stand means, in effect, covertly
    taking the side of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

Barboni’sbooklet is, in substance, entirely devoted to covering up
    this latter act. Barboni poses as an internationalist exactly as our
    Mr. Potresov does; he argues that,from the internationalist point of view,
    it is necessary to ascertain the success of which side will be more useful
    or harmless to the proletariat, and, of course, he has decided this question
    against . . . Austria and Germany. In a perfectly Kautskyist spirit, Barboni
    proposes to the Italian Socialist Party solemnly to proclaim the solidarity
    of the workers of all countries—in the first place, of course, of the
    belligerent countries—to proclaim internationalist convictions, a
    programme of peace on the basis of disarmament and national independence of
    all nations, including the formation of a “league of all nations for a
    reciprocal guarantee of their integrity and independence” (p. 126). It
    is in the name of these principles that Barboni declares that militarism is
    a “parasitic” phenomenon in capitalism, something “not at
    all necessary”; that Germany and Austria are imbued with “militarist
    imperialism”; that their aggressive policies have been a “standing
    threat to European peace”; that Germany has “constantly rejected the
    proposals for a restriction of armaments advanced by Russia [sic!] and
    Britain”, etc., etc., and that the Socialist Party of Italy should
    declare itself in favour of Italy’s intervention on the side of the
    Triple Entente at the opportune moment.

Whatremains unknown is the principles that make the bourgeois
    imperialism of Britain preferable to that of Germany. Germany’s
    economic development in the twentieth century has been more rapid than that
    of the other European countries; in the partition of colonies, she was badly
    “wronged”. Britain, on the other hand, has developed far more
    slowly; she has grabbed a host of colonies, where, far from Europe, she
    often uses methods of oppression no less brutal than the Germans. With her
    great wealth, she hires millions of soldiers of various continental powers
    to plunder Austria, Turkey, etc. In essence, Barboni’s
    internationalism, like that of Kautsky, is nothing but a verbal defence of
    socialist principles, behind which hypocritical cover his own bourgeoisie,
    the Italian, is actually defended. One cannot fail to notice that Barboni,
    who has published his book in free Switzerland (where the censor deleted
    only half a line on p. 75, evidently criticising Austria), has not deemed it
    necessary, in its 143 pages, to mention the main principles of the Basle
    Manifesto, or conscientiously to analyse them.On the other hand, our Barboni quotes with deep sympathy two former
      Russian revolutionaries who are now being publicised by the entire
      Francophile bourgeoisie: the petty-bourgeois anarchist Kropotkin, and the
      Social-Democratic philistine Plekhanov (p. 103). No wonder!
      Plekhanov’s sophisms do not differ in substance from
      Barboni’s. In Italy, however, political freedom more easily tears
      the veil from such sophisms, revealing more clearly Barboni’s actual
      stand as an agent of the bourgeoisie in the workers’ camp.

Barboniregrets the “absence of a real and actual revolutionary
    spirit” within German Social-Democracy (exactly in Plekhanov’s
    way); he warmly greets Karl Liebknecht (just as he is greeted by theFrenchsocial-chauvinists, who do not see the beam in their own
    eye), but he decidedly declares that “we cannot speak of the
    bankruptcy of the International” (p. 92), that the Germans “did
    not betray the spirit of the International” (p. 111), inasmuch as they
    were prompted by a “bona fide” conviction that they
    were defending the fatherland. In Kautsky’s sanctimonious vein, but
    with an admixture of Romance eloquence, Barboni declares that the
    International is prepared (after a victory over Germany) to “forgive
    the Germans as Christ forgave Peter a moment of distrust, to heal by
    oblivion the deep wounds inflicted by a militarist imperialism, and to
    extend a hand for an honourable and brotherly peace” (p. 113).

Amoving scene: Barboni and Kautsky—probably with aid from our
    Kosovsky and Axelrod—forgiving each other!

Whilequite pleased with Kautsky and Guesde, with Plekhanov and
    Kropotkin, Barboni is displeased with his own Socialist Labour Party in
    Italy. He complains that in this party, which before the war was fortunate
    enough to rid itself of the reformists Bissolati and Co., an atmosphere has
    been created which “cannot be breathed” (p. 7) by those who, like
    Barboni, do not agree to the slogan of “absolute
    neutrality” (i.e., to a determined struggle against those who stand for
    Italy joining the war). Poor Barboni complains bitterly that in the Italian
    Socialist Labour Party men like him are labelled
    “intellectuals”, “individuals who have lost contact with
    the masses”, “people hailingfrom the bourgeoisie”, who have “strayed from the straight
      path of socialism and internationalism” (p. 7). “Our
      party,” says Barboni indignantly, “fanaticises more than it
      educates the multitude” (p. 4).

Anold song! It is the Italian variation of the well-known theme of
    Russian liquidators and opportunists, decrying the
    “demagogy” of
    the wicked Bolsheviks who “incite” the masses against the dear
    socialists ofNasha Zarya, the Organising Committee, and
    Chkheidze’s Duma group! But what an invaluable admission this is by an
    Italian social-chauvinist: in the only country where, for several months,
    the platforms of the social-chauvinists and of the revolutionary
    internationalists could be freely discussed, theworking masses,
    theclass-conscious proletariat, have sided with the latter,
    whereas the petty-bourgeois intellectuals and opportunists have lined up
    with the former.

Neutralityis a narrow-minded egoism, a non-understanding of the
    international situation; it is baseness towards Belgium, and
    “absenteeism”, and “the absent are always wrong”,
    says Barboni, entirely in the spirit of Plekhanov and Axelrod. But since
    there are two legal parties in Italy, one reformist and the other a
    Social-Democratic labour party, and since in that country it is impossible
    to fool the public by covering up the nudity of the Potresovs, Cherevanins,
    Levitskys and Co. with the fig-leaf of Chkheidze’s Duma group or of
    the Organising Committee, Barboni frankly admits the following:

“Fromthis point of view I see more revolutionism in the activities
    of the reformist socialists, who have been quick to realise the enormous
    importance that such a change in the political situation [in consequence of
    a victory over German militarism] will have for the future anti-capitalist
    struggle, and who, with perfect consistency, have espoused the cause of the
    Triple Entente, than there is in the tactics of the official revolutionary
    socialists who, like a tortoise, have hidden under a shell of absolute
    neutrality” (p. 81).

Inconnection with this valuable admission, it remains for us only to
    express the wish that some comrade familiar with the Italian movement should
    collect and systematically analyse the vast and most interesting material
    furnished by Italy’stwo parties, as to which social strata
    and whichelements, with whose aid, and with which arguments, have defended
    the revolutionary policy of the Italian proletariat on the one hand, and
    servility to the Italian imperialist bourgeoisie on the other. The more such
    material is gathered in various countries, the more clearly will the
    class-conscious workers see thetruthas to the causes and
    significance of the Second International’s collapse.

Inconclusion, we would like to note that, confronted by a workers’
    party, Barboni attempts to use sophistry so as to play up to the
    workers’revolutionaryinstincts. The internationalist
    socialists of Italy, who are opposed to a war whichin factis
    being waged for the imperialist interests of the Italian bourgeoisie, are
    depicted by him as adherents of a cowardly abstinence, a selfish desire to
    hide from the horrors of war. “A people educated in a fear of the
    horrors of war,” he says, “will probably also be afraid of the
    horrors of a revolution” (p. 83). Together with this disgusting attempt
    to assume the guise of a revolutionary, we find a crudely practical
    reference to the “clear” words of Minister Salandra, who said
    that “order will be maintained at any cost”, and that attempts
    to hold a general strike directed against mobilisation will only lead to
    “useless carnage”. “We could not prevent the Libyan
    [Tripolitanian] war; less so will we be able to prevent the war against
    Austria” (p. 82).

LikeKautsky, Cunow and all the other opportunists, Barboni, with the
    basest intention of fooling a definite section of the masses, deliberately
    ascribes to the revolutionaries the silly plan to “frustrate the
    war” “immediately” and to allow themselves to be shot down
    at a moment most opportune for the bourgeoisie. He thus attempts to evade
    the task clearly formulated at Stuttgart and Basle, namely, to utilise the
    revolutionary crisis for systematic revolutionary propaganda and
    preparations for revolutionary mass action. Barboni sees quite clearly that
    Europe is living through a revolutionary moment.

“Thereis one point on which I deem it necessary to insist, even at
    the risk of becoming irksome to the reader, because without a clear idea of
    that point one cannot correctly estimate the present political
    situation. The point is that the period we are living through is a
    catastrophicone, a period of action, when there is no longer any question
    of propounding ideas, formulating programmes, or defining a line of
    political behaviour for the future, but of applying a live and active force
    to achieve results within months, possibly within weeks. Under such
    conditions, it is no longer a question of philosophising over the future of
    the proletarian movement, but of consolidating the point of view of the
    proletariat, in face of the present situation” (pp. 87-88).

Anothersophism under the guise of revolutionism! Forty-four years after
    the Paris Commune, after half a century of the mustering and preparation of
    mass forces, the revolutionary class of Europe must, at the present moment,
    when Europe is passing through a catastrophic period, think of how to
    quickly become the lackey of its national bourgeoisie, how to help it
    plunder, violate, ruin, and conquer other peoples, and how to refrain from
    launching, on a mass scale, direct revolutionary propaganda and preparation
    for revolutionary action.

[1]RobertoMichels,L’imperialismo italiano, Milano, 1914; T. Barboni,Internazionalismo o nazionalismo di classes?(Il proletariato
    d’Italia e la guerra europea). Edito dall’autore a
    Campione d’Intelvi (provincia di Como), 1915.
—Lenin

[2]Itis
    highly instructive to note the connection between Italy’s
    transformation into an imperialist country and the government’s
    agreeing to electoral reform. The latter increased the number of voters from
    3,219,000 to 8,562,000, in other words, it introduced
    “almost” universal suffrage. Prior to the Tripolitanian war,
    Giolitti, who carried out the reform, was bitterly opposed to it. “The
    motivation of the change of line by the government” and the moderateparties, says Michels, “was essentially patriotic. Notwithstanding
    their long-standing theoretical aversion from a colonial policy, the
    industrial workers, and more so the lower strata, fought against the Turks
    with perfect discipline and obedience, contrary to all expectations. Such
    slavish behaviour towards the government’s policy merited a reward to
    induce the proletariat to persevere along this new road. The President of
    the Council of Ministers declared in Parliament that, by his patriotic
    behaviour on the battlefield of Libya, the Italian worker had proved to the
    country that he had reached the highest stage of political maturity. He who
    is capable of sacrificing his life for a noble cause is also capable of
    defending the interests of the country as a voter, and he therefore has a
    right that the state should consider him worthy of full political
    rights” (p. 177). The Italian Ministers are good talkers! Still better
    are the German “radical” Social-Democrats who are repeating the
    following servile argument: “We have done ‘our’ duty by
    helping you to loot foreign countries, but ‘you’ do not wish to
    give ‘us’ universal suffrage in Prussia. . . .” —Lenin